From massive NSA spying, to IRS targeting of the administration’s political opponents, to collection and sharing of our health care information as part of Obamacare, it seems every day we learn of another assault on our privacy. Sadly, this week the Senate took another significant, if little-noticed, step toward creating an authoritarian surveillance state. Buried in the immigration bill is a national identification system called mandatory E-Verify.

The Senate did not spend much time discussing E-Verify, and what little discussion took place was mostly bipartisan praise for its effectiveness as a tool for preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining employment. It is a tragedy that mandatory E-Verify is not receiving more attention, as it will impact nearly every American’s privacy and liberty.

The mandatory E-Verify system requires Americans to carry a “tamper-proof” social security card. Before they can legally begin a job, American citizens will have to show the card to their prospective employer, who will then have to verify their identity and eligibility to hold a job in the US by running the information through the newly-created federal E-Verify database. The database will contain photographs taken from passport files and state driver’s licenses. The law gives federal bureaucrats broad discretion in adding other “biometric” identifiers to the database. It also gives the bureaucracy broad authority to determine what features the “tamper proof” card should contain.

Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we should have to ask permission from the federal government before taking a job ought to be offensive to all Americans. Under this system, many Americans will be denied the opportunity for work. The E-Verify database will falsely identify thousands as “ineligible,” forcing many to lose job opportunities while challenging government computer inaccuracies. E-Verify will also impose additional compliance costs on American businesses, at a time when they are struggling with Obamacare implementation and other regulations.

According to David Bier of Competitive Enterprise Institute, there is nothing stopping the use of E-Verify for purposes unrelated to work verification, and these expanded uses could be authorized by agency rule-making or executive order. So it is not inconceivable that, should this bill pass, the day may come when you are not be able to board an airplane or exercise your second amendment rights without being run through the E-Verify database. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the personal health care information that will soon be collected by the IRS and shared with other federal agencies as part of Obamacare will also be linked to the E-Verify system.

Those who dismiss these concerns as paranoid should consider that the same charges were leveled at those who warned that the PATRIOT Act could lead to the government collecting our phone records and spying on our Internet usage. Just as the PATRIOT Act was only supposed to be used against terrorists but is now used to bypass constitutional protections in matters having noting to do with terrorism or national security, the national ID/mandatory E-Verify database will not only be used to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining employment. Instead, it will eventually be used as another tool to monitor and control the American people.

The recent revelations of the extent of National Security Agency (NSA) spying on Americans, plus recent stories of IRS targeting Tea Party and similar groups for special scrutiny, demonstrates the dangers of trusting government with this type of power. Creation of a federal database with photos and possibly other “biometric” information about American citizens is a great leap forward for the surveillance state. All Americans who still care about limited government and individual liberty should strongly oppose E-Verify.

Whenever the federal government decides to reform something we can be fairly sure that the problem is about to get worse, especially if they call the plan bi-partisan. The bi-partisan immigration reform proposal launched last week in the US Senate will be no different.

The new plan, introduced by Sens. McCain and Schumer, would provide a path to citizenship for many of those in the United States illegally. This would only begin after the borders are deemed secure and applicants have paid fees for their illegal entry. They must also pay back taxes on their earnings while working here without government permission. Those on a path to citizenship would be subject to background checks and would be monitored while in the US.

The devil is in the details, and the details of the McCain plan are deeply disturbing. To secure the borders he is calling for a massive increase in drones flying over US territory, spying on US citizens along the border – and presumably within the 100 mile “border zone” over which Department of Homeland Security claims jurisdiction. What if these drones detect suspicious activity unrelated to illegal immigration? Imagine the implications for the federal government’s disastrous war on drugs. Imagine what’s left of the Fourth Amendment completely tossed into the trashcan. The “privatized” prison system in the US that now benefits from the war on drugs and illegal immigration will no doubt look forward to booming business thanks to the army of drones overhead.

Additionally, the McCain/Schumer plan calls for a nationwide, mandatory E-Verify program, which forces employers to act as federal immigration agents, and forces American citizens to prove to the government that they are allowed to work. E-Verify is an East Germany-like program that creates a massive federal database of every American citizen and notes whether or not they are permitted to work.

As Cato Institute privacy expert Jim Harper noted of e-Verify, potentially tens of thousands of American citizens would come up as a false positive for illegal status, denying them the right to work and forcing them to prove to the government that they are not here illegally. He writes, “If E-Verify goes national, get used to hearing that Orwellian term: ‘non-confirmation.’”

Harper rightly notes that E-Verify is in fact a national ID card, writing last week that, “the system must biometrically identify everyone who works—you, me, and every working American you know. There is no way to do internal enforcement of immigration law without a biometric national identity system.”

Much of the most recent immigration problem of the 2000s was actually created by the federal government. The easy money policy of the Federal Reserve blew up the housing bubble and created enormous demand for labor. This artificial demand was filled largely by workers who crossed into the US illegally. Within a year of the housing market crash in 2008, an estimated one million illegal workers left the United States for Mexico and beyond. Net illegal immigration into the United States last year had fallen to zero.

As I noted in my most recent book, Liberty Defined, much of our immigration problems would be eliminated were the federal government to simply return to sound money practices and end the welfare incentive for individuals to come to the US illegally. Afterward, what remains of the problem would mostly be solved with a far more generous and flexible guest worker program. Whatever the case, turning the US into a police state in order to fight a hyped up illegal immigration “crisis” is a bad deal for us all.

The Ron Paul2012 Presidential Campaign announced today the release of a new national security-themed television ad that is part of a seven-figure ad push that began two weeks ago.

The 30-second ad titled “Secure” cements Dr. Paul’s reputation as a leader who is fully prepared to deal with authentic threats to U.S. national security and ready to be the nation’s commander-in-chief. The spot will air beginning today on cable and broadcast television in the key early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

“Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate to put forth the notion that a strong national defense means ending destructive unconstitutional wars having an unclear connection to national security, ending costly state-building in regions where our presence is unwanted, and bringing hundreds of thousands of troops home to make America safer and cut overseas spending,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

“This ad will affirm Dr. Paul’s standing as the best candidate to face issues pertaining to national security all in the context of refocusing our efforts on protecting America’s borders and threats that might arrive on America’s soil, not foreign lands,” said Mr. Benton.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: foreignpolicy). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Mike Church: Let me start off and ask you what kind of reaction did you get Monday night after the debate in New Hampshire?

Ron Paul: It was all very positive, but I guess I would also say that maybe the people most eager to support me might have been there too, but I would like to think they were all that positive, no they were extremely positive, but I was also impressed with sort of the positive references to me during the debate which was quite different from four years ago because most of the references to me would have been negative then, so I think this represents a change in the country.

Mike Church: Congressman Paul, Senator Lindsey Graham said that he had a question that he would like to ask those that are for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, I want to read this to you and it’s a direct quote, “How can you allow the Taliban to come back in Afghanistan and not eventually affect our national security?” Congressman Paul, how do you answer that question?

Ron Paul: No he’s all mixed up, because the Taliban doesn’t event set a goal to come here, their goal and the purpose of the Taliban is the same as I mentioned in my speech, they’re part of the Mujahedeen’s it’s an outgrowth of Mujahedeen that we were allies with to throw out the occupiers in the 1980s when the Soviets were there. And therefore he has it all wrong, if he doesn’t want the Taliban to get radical and become more like Al-Qaeda where they want to come here to kills us, they’re much more aggressive because a small number, a small percentage, if he doesn’t want that to happen, which nobody wants to, he should avoid the incentive.

The incentive is our presence there, he should try to understand the history of what’s happening in Iran. We went in and set up a dictator, Mossadegh in 1953 and he was our guy and we stole in a way the oil and we did well at the expense of the people and what happened? That radicalized the people in opposition and that’s how the Ayatollah came in, so I’m sure he does it with good intention but he really doesn’t understand history, he doesn’t understand what’s going on, and it’s a deadly misunderstanding because as long as, he goes in that vein he just means “Let’s kill more Taliban,” and every time you kill a Taliban or have somebody kill innocently and there are plenty of innocent deaths over there and we do it from 30,000 feet or from a drone or something like this, all that does is build up anger and converts more people from Taliban that just wants to get rid of the occupiers and convert them in to the Al-Qaeda.

Mike Church: Now Graham also said that and again I quote, “We need to help those who will fight the terrorist in their own backyard, that’s what Ronald Reagan would have done, that’s what I want my party to be, the party that will defeat radical Islam and stand by those who will fight them in their own backyard.”

Ron Paul: I think my answer has to be awfully close, but also I think I could apply the Ronald Reagan quote that I used in my speech because Ronald Reagan admitted that he made a serious mistake by getting involved in internal civil war in Lebanon and he said if he would have followed a policy of neutrality, he admitted in his memoirs that those 241 Marines would be alive, now that is a courageous statement and Graham ought to read that and study it.

Mike Church: We hear all the time that Israel is our strongest ally in the region, the Middle East. Should we even have any allies in the Middle East?

Ron Paul: We should have official friends, we should make friends with as many people as possible and I think we should treat them as our best friend and right now the country that I think qualifies as our best friend is Canada, we trade more with them than anybody else, we travel with them more that anybody else and we give them no foreign aid. So I think that if we care about Israel, we shouldn’t get them so dependent because soon all our puppet governments are going to collapse and that’s what’s happening which jeopardizes Israel and they’re going to have a bigger concern and I want to stop all foreign aid, not foreign aid against Israel but people say “Oh my goodness, you can’t do that, that will hurt Israel.”

But the Arab nations surrounding Israel get seven times as much aid as Israel gets, and also a recent study came out that showed that for every dollar you give to an Arab nation, it prompts Israel to spend $1.4, they have to spend it to compensate for the increase in the opposition, and this to me makes no sense. The other thing I don’t like about this getting Israel dependent on us is, one we might not be there when they really needs us because we’ll be broke but also they can’t do anything, if they want to talk friends with somebody, we might say “Oh no, you can’t talk with Syria, you can’t do this,” we’ve done that on occasion.

But also when they decide that they want to do something with their borders like just recently when Obama suggested to them what they ought to do with the Palestinian, I mean even my own sympathies are irrelevant if you have a non interventions foreign policy, as far as Israel goes, I defend their right to do what they need to do for their own security and they shouldn’t give up their sovereignty to us, if they depend on our money and our troops, they’re sacrificing more than they need to sacrifice.

Mike Church: What about NATO allies?

Ron Paul: Well, people say we have to be there to support our NATO allies, I think we should be support with the American tax payer and the American people and our sovereignty and our well being, so I sort of liked what, I took the advise that Robert Taff gave when they were setting up and he says “Don’t get in it, it’s going to bog us down and lead to us fighting fights that we shouldn’t be fighting,” and that’s exactly what happened so we shouldn’t be taking orders from NATO whether it’s in Bosnia or whether it’s in Libya and taken out of the hands and controls of the US government, US Congress and US tax payer.

Mike Church: He’s a hypothetical for you, as president you move to stabilize and begin to rebuild our currency and the value of it, at the same time the Chinese move to begin devaluing their currency, what would happen and what would you do about it?

Ron Paul: Well purposely devaluing a currency whether it’s us or the Chinese is not good all round, it just destroys value so it’s very detrimental. So if we have a stronger currency, we’re going to benefit because we’re going to invite capital into our country and that’s what we need, for us to badger the Chinese on what they do, we should be badgering ourselves so that we don’t borrow so much and we live beyond our means and become indebted to the Chinese, what they do and if they print too much, they’re going to have inflation, matter fact, they have been trapped as well too, they took all our dollars but they monetized our dollars, they did a favor for us, actually we’re able to export some of our inflation, spend the dollars over there and they monetize and print a new Yuan and now they’re suffering inflation and they’re very concerned about their price rising.

Mike Church: In the debate Monday night, you were given 30 seconds to answer a question about illegal immigration. Question, what is the proper way to deal with illegal immigration?

Ron Paul: Of course it is a big issue and that’s why I wrote a whole chapter in ‘Liberty Defined’ on what we can do and can’t do and why we have that problem. I think it’s clear in the Constitution that the Federal government has something to say about people coming across our borders and we have a responsibility to protect the borders. But I think right now one of the problems we have is the inefficiency at our borders, I think if they could process people a little faster and would be better off and we’d have less illegal. But I basically say the people who come here illegally, no amnesty, no citizenship, no mandates to get free medical care and for education, Federal government telling the states, bankrupting our southern states, that they should not, and I don’t see how it’s possible where you can round up 20 million people but I would not give them citizenship, benefits and allow them to vote, I think that would be very detrimental.

But it is the welfare system that helps encourage this, even when we had good times, people came into my office wanting more workers, because a lot of our people wouldn’t work, and so I think welfare is bad both because it doesn’t prompt some of our people to work when they should be and it encourages those who come here illegally to use our services, it’s part of the reason that California is bankrupt, I mean tune of billions of dollars I think it may be $9 billion a year that they use to give free benefits to illegal, so that should not be and I think it would iron itself out but I worry a little bit about immigration, I think in my chapter that I write ‘be careful about ID cards and fences and all because it may backfire, it may be that the fence is being built to keep out illegal’s, but it may be a fence that will keep in American citizens financially that is already the case, you just can’t move your money and your life very easily, we can’t go into Mexico or Canada anymore without our passports, so that is not symbolic of a society getting freer, that’s symbolic of a society cracking down on our freedoms to move about.

Mike Church: Congressman Paul, can you explain to folks who may be unfamiliar with your views why is it so important to end the Fed.

Ron Paul: The Fed is one half of our economy, we have transaction, your wages, what you earn, what you pay, everything is translated in the value of the dollar. And it’s controlled by a few people secretly they cannot be monitored by the Congress, so they do central economic planning through the Federal Reserve. Now spending is out of control, Congress is responsible to a large degree but Congress has been especially complacent about the Federal Reserve, they didn’t fully understand it, but they did know that, one time I say “We need more entitlements, we need more welfare” so they run it up and it seems to be taken care of, we have debt and the Fed comes in and prints the money they we need.

They counterfeit the money, and then another group will say “Yes, it’s risky business but we need these five wars to go on, we need to be all over the place, so how are you going to pay for it? Well we’ll print up the money.” So it encourages big government, it undermines our liberty, it creates the financial bubbles, it creates the boom times but it creates the depression and the recessions too. Because it’s bad economics, it’s also very unconstitutional too, there’s no authority in the constitution to have paper money printed by a secret group of people and it refutes the part of the Constitution said “Only Gold and Silver should be legal tender.”

Mike Church: Simply yes or no question coming up, should the Federal government end its war on drugs?

Ron Paul: Sure, absolutely yes.

Mike Church: Some folks may say “Why?”

Ron Paul: We’ve spent over a trillion dollars in the last 40 years on the war on drugs and there are more people using drugs now than ever before. One of the most deadly drugs that we have today is alcohol, kills more people than all the rest put together, more people die from the war on drugs and the fights going on and that’s why we have these border wars going on than they do from the drugs, yes there’s probably about 3,000 people die from illegal drugs a year but probably 20,000 get killed in the war on drugs. And it’s used as an excuse to undermine our freedoms, breaking into your house without search warrant, with guns blazing, into the wrong houses and killing people, no way.

And I believe in personal responsibility, I happen to uphold the use of drugs and I’m very cautious about prescription drugs too, I think they’re very bad and of course taught my children and grandchildren how dangerous they are but that doesn’t mean that I think that the solution comes from government, but it’s a trillion dollars of expense, it was unnecessary and it’s actually a lot worse than the tragedies of the 1920s when alcohol was illegal, but they still drank a lot of alcohol, a lot of bad alcohol and people died from the bad alcohol.

So the prohibitionists are just authoritarians and do-gooders that get emotional about it and they don’t realize what they have done, how much harm they have done.

Mike Church: Follow up question, can you end it if elected president?

Ron Paul: You could change it, you can’t end it you could maybe challenge some of the laws in court, but you don’t have to arrest people in California that are using marijuana even though California has legalized it especially for medical reasons, you could argue the case that we’re not going to supersede, constitutionally we don’t want to supersede state laws, but of course the consensus now in Washington, everybody wants more power in the executive in Washington, they say “All Federal law supersedes state laws.” Well I happen to be very sympathetic to nullification and actually what’s happening in California, I mean millions of people who have smoked Marijuana, they’ve already nullified some of these laws, so why are they still pretending, every once in a while you’ll still hear cases of people being arrested by the Federal government and I didn’t mention in my talk but they actually arrest people for drinking raw milk too.

The Mennonites or, somebody was arrested “Oh we’re going to get you, you’re not allowed to have that much freedom of choice, no danger.” So it’s the principle of freedom of choice and I frequently like to tie that into freedom of choice on usually your First Amendment, you don’t prohibit people from speaking just because they might say something controversial.

Mike Church: Now, there’s a lot of young people that follow your campaign and some of them are your most ardent fans and supporters, here’s a question, what would you say to them about the current situation a federally financed and federally guaranteed student loans, grants and what have you?

Ron Paul: Well nationalizing won’t hurt, I think we should phase it out, I think those loans ought to be paid off when they can but we should stop promoting that, then there’s the big question today whether $100,000 is a good investment you get out of college and some people are saying “It’s not really helping us” so they’re investing in some very poor education, so when I went to college and medical school, I always had a job on the side, always had my wife have a job on the side too, so that way you paid your way.

But it wasn’t that expensive, today because of the inflation plus because the government pushes money into these areas like whether it’s medicine or education, it doesn’t increase quality, it increase prices so you have to change all that, but nationalizing it isn’t a good idea but winding that program down with a guarantee, it should be market oriented, once it’s guaranteed, a bank is more likely give a guaranteed loan to a student that it is to invest in a small company wanting to produce some jobs.

Mike Church: At the debate in New Hampshire, some frivolous and silly questions were asked of the candidates, really didn’t have any impact on what you would do or what you thought you would do as president of the United States. But I thought that we may try this exercise and so I wrote a couple of questions that I think actually are relevant and would have something to do with you discharging your duties as president of the United States, I call it Rapid Fire with Ron Paul. Are you ready?

Ron Paul: We’ll try.

Mike Church: Your favorite metal for coins, gold or silver?

Ron Paul: Gold.

Mike Church: Von Hayek or Mises?

Ron Paul: Mises.

Mike Church: Adams of Jefferson?

Ron Paul: Jefferson. I like Sam too but…

Mike Church: Barry Goldwater in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1980?

Ron Paul: Goldwater.

Mike Church: And finally, after your election as president, when you speak to the nation, will you use handwritten notes or the teleprompter?

Ron Paul: Probably both and sometimes spontaneously.

Mike Church: Final question for you Congressman Paul, what is the most important role a president plays in our constitutional system?

Ron Paul: Setting the standard and the tone of how a free society works, to convince people that people can take better care of themselves than government and they need to get off this addiction to government caring for them from cradle to grave and I think that would solve most of our problems.

Mike Church: Congressman Paul, I want to thank you for taking some time out to sit down with us and answer questions, we really appreciate it, wish you best of luck in your campaign and God bless my friend.

]]>http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-10/ron-paul-lou-dobbs-and-sharron-angle-on-freedom-watch/feed/196Ron Paul: No Amnesty!http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-07/ron-paul-no-amnesty/#commentsWed, 07 May 2008 20:41:47 +0000http://www.ronpaul.com/?p=42Continue reading]]>Now that John McCain is talking of “comprehensive” immigration reform (code word for amnesty) again, there is only one Presidential candidate who wants America to remain American by eliminating – rather than encouraging – illegal immigration: Ron Paul.

The immigration debate probably won’t change the course of this election as other issues have come to the forefront. But while most Americans are preoccupied with trying to make ends meet in the face of skyrocketing inflation, the facts on the ground are being created right now for eventual union with Mexico and Canada.

The United States already has free trade agreements and de facto open borders with Mexico. Motivated by economic opportunity and easy welfare, illegals come and go as they please and live in our sanctuary cities where they are safe from deportation. What’s next? Further economic integration, loss of national sovereignty, and a common currency… which probably won’t be the dollar as it has been collapsing right before our eyes.

Eventually, these developments could lead to a third-world style “North American Union” which would be a fascist elite’s dream come true. An impoverished, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

In 2006 Ron Paul elaborated on these important issues in his classic essay on immigration. Read it here.

For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American “melting pot”. We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences. Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001.

In Prince William County near DC, ICE can’t deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn’t be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.

One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system. We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can’t afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits.

This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn’t make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship.

It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can’t or won’t address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point. Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.

Illegal immigration is on the forefront of many Americans’ minds lately and with good reason. The Center for Immigration Studies has recently reported that our immigrant population is now 37 million, up from 27 million in 1997. 1 in 3 of these immigrants are here illegally. We have a problem that has exploded in the last 10 years with no appreciable change in border security since September 11 when we were supposed to take a hard look at the problem. We have security issues at home and our resources are running thin. Our education system is stretched, and immigration accounts for virtually all the national increase in public school enrollment in the last 2 decades. There is a worker present in 78% of immigrant households using at least one major welfare program, according to the same study. It’s no surprise then that often times these immigrants can afford to work for lower wages.

They are subsidized by our government to do so. Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system. I have opposed giving federal assistance to illegal immigrants and have introduced legislation that ends this practice. In the last major House-passed immigration bill I attempted to introduce an amendment that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for any federal assistance. Unfortunately, that amendment was ruled “not relevant” to immigration reform. I believe it is very relevant to taxpayers, however, who are being taken advantage of through the welfare system. Illegal immigrants should never be eligible for public schooling, social security checks, welfare checks, free healthcare, food stamps, or any other form government assistance. The anchor baby phenomenon has also been very problematic. Simply being born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents should not trigger automatic citizenship.

This encourages many dangerous behaviors and there are many unintended consequences as a result of this blanket policy. I am against amnesty and I have introduced an amendment to the Constitution (H.J. Res 46) which will end this form of amnesty. I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs. The anger is understandable when it comes to illegal immigration and the problems with our borders. I will continue to fight in Congress for more effective ways to address these issues in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to protect America .